is this directed at me?
Horizons Why am i losing hull when landing on very low g planets without shelds?
- Thread starter CMDR Oscar Gul
- Start date
- Status
...and without a hanger module, so no need to land anyway. Also, I don't see them moaning about magically gaining a planetary approach suite.
I've landed with very little worry, especially after I've gotten analog vertical thruster control, thanks to android app.
The thing is, if you use downwards thrusters just a bit above a planet, you are giving them a full blast downwards for a short second at full speed, that very easily could be what is causing the damage, you need to touch down lightly not to get damaged.
But there is no way to know what you might be doing wrong, or it might be a bug, without a video of it happening.
I've landed without shield on planets and stations with no damage for quite a while even before I got the app to get virtual analog control.
Funny, the shields flash (I.e. take 1% damage or so) upon just about any landing and that is considered normal. Yet, that same 1% or so damage happens to the hull when they aren't fitted and it's considered to be a bug...
This game is all about compromises, want to avoid damage on landing, just buy a small shield and suffer the corresponding range drop. Want maximum range but limited durability leave the shield. The damage occurs whether you have shields or not, just the shields absorb it when fitted, not the hull.
This game is all about compromises, want to avoid damage on landing, just buy a small shield and suffer the corresponding range drop. Want maximum range but limited durability leave the shield. The damage occurs whether you have shields or not, just the shields absorb it when fitted, not the hull.
the only reason to land (like anything else in exploration) is for screenshots, POI have no interest, materials are just another grind.
I've posted 2 vids on this page, one without and one with analog control, can you please tell me what I'm doing wrong ? or can you post one of yours for comparaison ?
maybe the bug occurs only for some people, it would help to understand if it's a matter of ships, bad luck, skill, hardware, ...
Yeah, didn't see last page of topic before I posted.
Hrm, you are doing nothing wrong on those videos, maybe it is ship and geometry? I generally fly medium/large ships and many of those need larger flatter area's to land right, making it slightly less lightly it would have errand planet terrain poking out?
That said I do fly with a shield now, because I am exploring and accidents do happen, with hull not being repairable while exploring.
But that said yeah, it seems a bit odd, that it would happen landing at those slow speeds.
If I were to guess, it seems shield has a 'minimum' rule/buffer, like something needs to be at a certain speed or so for impacts and such to get damage.
But hull does not have such for impacts?
Last edited:
Write up a bug here on the forum, they are working on soooo many things, I don't think it would be that much of an issue to look into this. and link this thread, in the bug report too.
Ho, it's already done (since the beta in december), and I know that the QA guys have reported the problem, so it's just a matter of "when" now. I will not be able to bump my old report if the problem persist in 2.1/1.6 beta (it's archived now), so I'll do as usual: open a new one with a new video and link to the archived post for reference.
I know that they have a very long list of bugs to fix and that they set the priority, it will be fixed at some point.
I've just posted in this thread because some people were denying that the bug even exist.
Not much debate about whether it's a bug, more whether it's a game breaking bug. No way is it a game breaker, imo, unless someone wants to make a drama out of it.
That's a matter of perspective, only a fraction of explorers are affected, but I can understand that it can make someone to stop playing, I've initially postponed an exploration trip waiting for it to be fixed. But as there here other parts of the game that I like, I can wait.
So yep, it's not "game breaking" for enough players to make it a priority for FD, still it's much higher in my personal "please fix" wishlist than PvP balance to use an example really related to dramas...
Yeah, they can't land, but without an SRV they have no need to. They can still go planet side and take pictures from a low hover, of course.
My verdict: small bug, big fuss.
I think FD have dialled up the damage for landing a tad too much. I forgot to turn on my shields when landing my Anaconda once - on a 0.1g planet. My descent rate was about 0.5m/second, and the result was about 8% damage to the hull.
Now, a 747 does that sort of landing all the time on a 1g world (Earth), so... If an Anaconda can't land at the same descent rate as a 747 without damage... Well, I think you get my point.
Boeing build 747's to withstand a touchdown descent rate of about 800fpm (that's about 4m/s). I think it would be quite reasonable if our ships could achieve this same sort of descent rate without damage...
Z...
Now, a 747 does that sort of landing all the time on a 1g world (Earth), so... If an Anaconda can't land at the same descent rate as a 747 without damage... Well, I think you get my point.
Boeing build 747's to withstand a touchdown descent rate of about 800fpm (that's about 4m/s). I think it would be quite reasonable if our ships could achieve this same sort of descent rate without damage...
Z...
Sorry for off-topic, but it's an airplane-style landing on a prepared for that background using rubber wheels (with degradation=damaged with each usage/subsequent landing), also you've never saw smoke (and sometimes fire=)) ) accompanying this process?=) That not a case of vertical landing on a not at all prepared surface (with all the rocks that are not polished by the atmosphere). Actual relative speed of 0.1 m/s mentioned earlier for real-life space docking is better for approximation.
Sorry, I'm now picturing yourself using that argument in 1969: "no, sorry, Neil, you don't have a SRV on board, no need to land, just take a picture from a low hover and come back ASAP"
A vertical landing would be less stressful then an aircraft style landing, surely? Have you not seen the chunky landing gear of an Anaconda, Asp, or other ships? I'd like to think that in 3302 the landing gear would be capable of enduring at least the same forces commercial passenger aircraft dealt with back in the 1970's (and before)...
Space docking is not the right comparison at all - there is nothing to absorb shock, and no suspension. The landing gear on these things are not rigid...
Now, I repeat - 8% hull damage from about 0.5m/s descent rate on a 0.1g planet. That's more damage than 2 C4 cannons...
Z...
Last edited:
It is actually measured with a G load on landing, general tolerance works out around 600 fpm if above max landing weight, that only means the aircraft requires an inspection, you can actually get away with quite a bit higher in most cases.
Anyway, I did some shieldless tests and the damage is way overdone, I performed some incredibly smooth shieldless landings, damage ranged from 0 to 3% These ships have massive Oleo struts, you can clearly see them absorbing the landing. Devs should tweak the damage model.
I did some testing too. I went down to 1m AGL, cut the thrusters and got 1% hull damage 9/10 times.
Off-topic:
It's inertial mass and velocity that counts. Landing gear in 3302 also counts on shields in most cases so can be much more fragile than you expected. It's you choice to not use them. Landing gear and all shock-absorbant mechanics are the parts of yours conda hull.
Haven't study this question so far, they can be installed. Don't know. If no, there will be scratches at least - at any speed, also below 0.1.
taking into account conda mass - 400t (?) we have 0.05MJ (if I calculated well) absorbed somewhere in your hull/suspension. Not so many. But may be that kind of "damage" is rather effective=)
It really comes down to this - No matter how smooth I am, my T9's 4 massive oleo struts are only designed to handle a maximum of 100 landings before the ship is destroyed. That is way overdone no matter how you look at it.
Just to clarify, it can't be the G load on landing doing damage to ships in ED, we can pull extremely high G maneuvers with zero damage to the ship - As I mentioned before, it is G load that is monitored on aircraft, the struts can take a beating, it is the hull that has low G limits.
It's all very simplified in ED, the game is only looking at descent rate in m/s, the low end tolerance hasn't been implemented correctly.
Just to clarify, it can't be the G load on landing doing damage to ships in ED, we can pull extremely high G maneuvers with zero damage to the ship - As I mentioned before, it is G load that is monitored on aircraft, the struts can take a beating, it is the hull that has low G limits.
It's all very simplified in ED, the game is only looking at descent rate in m/s, the low end tolerance hasn't been implemented correctly.
Last edited:
- Status